9 comments in reply to "Can someone think of a good protest chant for keeping the “fiduciary rule”??"

  1. Tom in MN says:

    Well something along these lines might be good:

    https://dave.moskovitz.co.nz/2017/02/05/what-do-we-want-evidence-based-science-when-do-we-want-it-after-peer-review/

    What do we want? Conflict free financial advice.
    When do we want it? Before we get scammed.

    H/t to PK’s column today.


  2. Robert Salzberg says:

    You work for me
    I don’t work for you
    Keep the fudiciary rule!


  3. Robert Salzberg says:

    I’m a customer
    Not a fool
    Keep the fiduciary rule!


  4. Robert Salzberg says:

    I’m a client
    Not a fool
    Keep the fiduciary rule!


  5. Deborah Weinstein says:

    Trump scary, you wary,
    Don’t let them stop
    Fidu-ci-ary!

    may need work.


  6. Tom Cantlon says:

    Not a chant but a slogan:
    “A quarter of your retirement goes to Wall St advisers.”
    There’s a little hyperbole there but it’s a slogan not a deposition.
    It’s the kind of line that if repeated a million times would stick in peoples’ heads as a fact, that their retirement is getting seriously shrunk by unscrupulous financiers. If that were to get into peoples’ heads as firmly as “what we need is tax cuts and less regulation” then saying that the solution is the fiduciary rule would be a simple sell. It’s not a sexy issue but then again anything that has to do with the aging demographic and the money they’re hoping to retire on is hot stuff. Right up there with “keep government hands off my Medicare”.


  7. Smith says:

    That great that Democrats will fight for reform now that it’s politically expedient (though I’m not putting this blog in that category). But one has to ask, as Trump did of Clinton, you have all these great things you say you wanna do, you’ve been in government for 25 years, why haven’t you done it?
    Indeed, why was Obama trying to change the employment exempt rule on his way out vs any one of the first eight years in office? Why is this fiduciary rule something proposed to go into effect four month after the end of his administration? Why wasn’t that common sense rule an actual law or campaign issue decades ago? I’m shocked every time I think of it, that advisors are not supposed to put your financial interests first? Am I misreading this? They’re not selling you a used car, where the buyer beware. They’re supposed to be more like a doctor or lawyer, only they’re taking care of your financial health. Otherwise, there should be a two separate professions, sales and advising, and no mixing or kickbacks.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.